In Downing Centre District Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (no conviction) for a 22 year old Carramar man who pleaded ‘guilty’ to possessing 7 ecstacy tablets at Sydney’s ‘Future Music Festival’.

The Presiding Judge was persuaded to allow the man to remain ‘conviction free’ as any conviction may have resulted in him losing his job.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® convinced the Presiding Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court not to record a conviction against a 33 year old St Leonards man who pleaded ‘guilty’ to possessing 5 ecstacy pills, despite him already having a ‘Section 10’ in 2004 and a criminal conviction in 2006.

Our client attended counselling, wrote a ‘letter of apology’ and obtained references in the lead-up to his case, and submissions were made to the Magistrate about the effect of a ‘drug conviction’ on his job prospects.

After convincing the DPP to drop charges of ‘drug supply’ and ‘good in custody’, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (no criminal conviction) for our 20 year old Artarmon client who then pleaded guilty to a single charge of ‘possessing’ an indictable quantity of ecstacy tablets.

He is studying Civil Engineering and a criminal record may have impacted upon his future job prospects.

Drug Supply & Drug Possession charges were Dismissed in Downing Centre Court after the Magistrate found there was insufficient evidence to prove that our 22 year old client supplied or possessed drugs.

Police officers gave evidence in court that they were certain our client threw 2 bags of cocaine into a bush as they approached him with a sniffer dog.

Our client denied the allegation and the Magistrate found that another person may have possessed and discarded the drugs.

After having a charge of ‘deemed supply’ withdrawn, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained ‘Section 10s’ (no convictions) for our 51 year old client who then pleaded guilty in Downing Centre Local Court to possessing 12 ‘Ecstacy’ Tablets and a quantity of Ketamine.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained bail in Central Local Court for a 26 year old man charged with having 4.75kg of imported Cocaine, which is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a ‘presumption against bail’.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a ‘Section 10’ (ie no criminal conviction) for a 30 year old man after persuading police to reduce a charge of ‘supply prohibited drug’ to ‘possess prohibited drug’ and then convincing the Magistrate that a criminal conviction would impact negatively on his employment prospects.

In Parramatta Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had all drug charges dismissed for a 26 year old man found with ‘ecstacy tablets’ and ‘ice’ in his bedroom draw, on the basis that police could not prove ‘exclusive possession’.

Police were then ordered to pay our client’s legal costs because they failed to properly investigate the possibility that the drugs may have belonged to his girlfriend, who was staying in the same room at the time.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had all drug supply and possession charges dismissed in Downing Centre Court by arguing that the police search of our client’s car was illegal.

Our client was driving his vehicle in Ultimo when police pulled him over for a random breath test.

Police claimed that while approaching the car, they observed our client lean over in a manner consistent with placing an item underneath the passenger seat.

They asked him “what did you just put under the seat” to which he replied “nothing”. Police administered a breath test which came back negative.

Police then advised they suspected our client of being in possession of drugs. They searched the car and located a small resealable bag containing 12 ‘ecstacy’ pills under the passenger seat.

They charged him with drug supply (deemed) due to the number of pills found and also with drug possession.

During the hearing, it was argued that simply observing a person lean over is insufficient by itself for police to form a reasonable suspicion in order to search the car. Indeed under cross examination during a voire dire (a hearing within a hearing), the officers admitted not being able to see any item in our client’s hand but simply seeing him momentarily lean over. It was also established the officers could not have had a clear view of this from their position.

The magistrate accepted that argument and found the ensuing search was illegal. She applied section 138 of the Evidence Act to exclude the evidence of drugs found after the search, and dismissed both charges.

The case serves as a reminder that a ‘reasonable suspicion’ must be ‘more than a mere possibility’ and based upon solid grounds; as per the leading case of R v Rondo.

Our clients (two men and a woman) were travelling to the ConFest Festival in the ACT when their car was stopped and searched by police.

Police found 5.5g of liquid LSD, 1 sugar cube of LSD, 4 MDMA/ecstasy pills and 2 grams of cannabis after a drug detection dog alerted them to the presence of drugs within the vehicle.

When questioned by police, our clients said that the drugs were for personal use only. Consequently, two of our clients were charged with two counts of ‘drug possession’ for the LSD and MDMA, while the third was charged with ‘possession of cannabis.’

They were represented by another law firm in the Local Court, where they were convicted of all charges and received heavy fines.

Unhappy with this result, they then contacted Sydney Drug Lawyers and explained their case to Mitchell Cavanagh, one of our expert senior drug defence lawyers.

Mr Cavanagh lodged an appeal against their sentence in the District Court, arguing that it was too harsh. He subsequently obtained ‘section 10s’ for each of our clients – meaning that they did not receive convictions on their criminal records and avoided the heavy fines originally imposed by the Local Court.

Mr Cavanagh was able to obtain this outstanding result by presenting evidence in court to show that ‘section 10s’ are able to be awarded even in serious drug cases which involve large quantities of different drugs and numerous charges.

Thanks to Mr Cavanagh’s expert knowledge of drug law and his excellent advocacy skills, our clients were able to get on with their lives without worrying about the impact of a criminal record.

This case shows how valuable it can be to have a specialist drug lawyer on your side – our in-depth knowledge of drug law, coupled with our experience defending these types of cases allows us to obtain excellent results when other law firms are unable to do so.

Our client was a 24 year old woman who attended the Stereosonic Music Festival in Sydney. She was charged with two counts of ‘drug possession’ and one count of ‘drug supply’ after police allegedly saw her selling ecstasy pills at the festival.

After searching her, police found 16 ecstasy pills which weighed 5.44 grams in total, as well as a capsule containing amphetamines.

Due to the large quantity of drugs, the matter had to be heard in the District Court.

Despite the prosecution having a strong case for ‘actual supply,’ our expert criminal lawyers were able to persuade the prosecution to amend the facts so that she was charged with ‘deemed supply,’ which is a much less serious charge that carries lesser penalties.

Sydney Drug Lawyers then put our client in the best possible position before her sentencing date by helping her collect character references and encouraging her to attend counselling.

We then worked hard to persuade the court to deal with the matter by way of a ‘section 10,’ which meant that our client avoided having a conviction recorded on her criminal history and did not have to pay heavy fines.

Our client was then able to continue her job as a Project Analyst without worrying about how a criminal record could affect her job.

This was an excellent result given the seriousness of the charges and the large amount of drugs involved. Again, it demonstrates how valuable it is to have a specialist drug lawyer on your side who will ensure that you get the best possible result in your drug case.

Police alleged that he was part of a criminal syndicate that was involved in supplying heroin and ecstasy.

They began a surveillance operation in May 2013 and obtained evidence including phone intercepts and video surveillance which showed that our client sold drugs on behalf of others who were higher up in the syndicate.

Our client, along with two others allegedly involved in the syndicate, was charged with numerous drug offences including ‘drug supply’ for heroin.

Despite the strong evidence obtained by police and the seriousness of the charges, our expert defence team fought hard to have the charges dropped on the basis that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client committed the offences.

As the charges were dropped before the matter went to court, our client was also able to avoid the time and expense involved in a District Court trial.

He is now able to move on with his life without a conviction on his criminal record, which could have seriously impacted his ability to work and travel.

The other two persons who were charged with drug offences chose to be represented by another ‘general’ criminal law firm that was unable to have the charges dropped. As a result, they now face the stress and expense of a District Court trial.

This goes to show that the knowledge and experience of a specialist drug lawyer can make all the difference when it comes to getting an outstanding result in your drug case.

Our client was a 30 year old Italian male who was observed selling capsules at the AVICII concert in Centennial Parklands.

He was searched by police who found 73 capsules and pills believed to be ecstasy in separate bags, as well as $770 cash.

Police arrested him and charged him with ‘drug supply’ and ‘dealing with the proceeds of crime.’

However, the substances were later analysed and determined to be a legal drug known as ‘Lofton,’ rather than ecstasy.

Our senior defence team was able to fight to have the charges dropped even though the law says that you can still be charged with drug supply if the pills simply resemble drugs and are sold under the assumption that they are illegal drugs.

However, our specialist lawyers argued that there was not enough evidence to show that our client was selling the substances as illegal drugs.

Our client was a 24 year old male who was approached by police in a nightclub after reports that he was selling ecstasy.

Police spoke to the man and asked whether he had any drugs on him, and he immediately showed them a small plastic bag containing 8 ecstasy pills.

As a result, he was charged with ‘drug possession’ and ‘deemed drug supply.’

‘Deemed supply’ is a unique charge that applies in situations where you have a certain amount of drugs upon you and it is automatically presumed that you intended to sell them.

You can be charged with ‘deemed supply’ even if there is no other evidence to suggest that you intended to sell the drugs to other people.

Despite the seriousness of these charges and the amount of drugs involved, our expert defence team was able to persuade the prosecution to drop the ‘deemed supply’ charge.

Our client then pleaded guilty to the ‘drug possession’ charge, however his senior defence lawyer, Mr Nedim, was able to obtain a section 10.

A ‘section 10’ is where you are found guilty of the charges but no conviction is recorded on your criminal record.

Sometimes, having a criminal record can affect your ability to find a job or travel overseas. In this case, our client was studying accounting and was worried about how a criminal record would affect his ability to find a job after university.

Thanks to the effort and hard work of our expert defence lawyers, he is now able to move on with his life and pursue his chosen career path.

Again, this excellent result shows how you can benefit from the knowledge and experience of a specialist drug lawyer.

Our 29 year old client was pulled over by police, who alleged that he was speeding and driving recklessly.

When speaking to police, they claimed that he appeared nervous and fidgety and was sweating profusely.

Police then conducted a background check and found that our client had a previous drug conviction. On this basis, they searched his car and found 58 grams of cannabis. He was then charged with ‘drug possession’.

However, our expert defence team argued that having a previous drug conviction is not enough to justify a search, and that our client’s nervousness was normal in the circumstances.

He came to us after two other law firms told him that he would likely face 15 months to 2 years in prison.

He was also told that due to the seriousness of the charges, he would not be able to participate in the MERIT program, and the matter would have to be dealt with in the District Court.

However, with the help of the experts at Sydney Drug Lawyers, he was able to have the charges downgraded to ‘cultivation’ and ‘possession’ for personal purposes only. This meant that the case stayed in the Local Court, where the penalties are much lower.

Our client was also able to undertake the MERIT Program and ended up with a section 9 good behaviour bond, as well as a number of small fines – a great result considering other law firms had advised him that he was facing gaol time.

The specialist drug lawyers at Sydney Drug Lawyers frequently obtain excellent results in complex cases where other lawyers have given up hope.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, however our expert defence lawyers were able to persuade the court to issue him with a ‘section 11 bond.’

A section 11 bond allows the matter to be adjourned to allow you to complete rehabilitation. The court will then determine your sentence after you finish the rehabilitation or intervention program.

Our client used this time to undergo a 9 month rehabilitation program at Odyssey House. During this time, he made significant progress in addressing his drug problems and eventually began teaching other people at the rehabilitation centre.

When it came to sentencing, our expert defence lawyers highlighted his outstanding efforts in rehabilitation and fought hard to obtain a suspended sentence for his offences.

This is a fantastic result given the serious nature of the charges. Thanks to the efforts of our senior defence team, our client has been able to continue his outpatient treatment and plans to start his own landscaping business.

A ‘section 10’ is where you are found guilty of the charge, but no conviction is recorded on your criminal record. This is a best-case scenario outcome, as a criminal record can make it difficult to find work or travel overseas.

The experts at Sydney Drug Lawyers are frequently successful in obtaining ‘section 10s,’ even in more serious drug cases such as ‘drug supply.’

Because of this excellent result, our client is now able to move on with her life and pursue her career as a social worker.

He was charged with multiple offences including ‘supply drugs on an ongoing basis,’ ‘participate in criminal group’ and 11 counts of ‘supply prohibited drug.’

These offences are treated seriously by the courts and generally result in a prison sentence – indeed, our client had fully expected to go to gaol.

However, our highly-experienced principal, Ugur Nedim, was able to put forth compelling arguments which persuaded the Judge to deal with the matter by way of a suspended sentence.

A suspended sentence is an alternative to full-time gaol. It is a good behaviour bond which enables you to go about your daily life provided that you stick to the terms and conditions of the bond.

This meant that our client did not end up in prison, despite the fact that he had prior convictions – an outstanding result considering statistics for these offences showed that 100% of offenders went to prison.

Our client was a 23 year old male who was in his final year of law school.

He was caught with 4 pills containing ecstasy and 9 pills containing amphetamines.

Due to the large number of pills, our client was charged with ‘drug supply.’ However, our lawyers fought to have the supply charge reduced to a ‘drug possession’ charge, which carries much lesser penalties.

Police charged our 22 year old client with ‘drug supply’ and ‘drug possession.’

They alleged that he threw 2 bags of cocaine into the bushes when he was approached by police and a sniffer dog.

Our client pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charges, and with the help of our experienced criminal defence team, he was able to convince the Magistrate that someone else may have thrown the drugs into the bushes.

As a result, all charges were dismissed and our client was found ‘not guilty.’

Our lawyers then fought hard to present his case in the most positive light, and were able to secure a ‘section 10,’ which is where you are found guilty but no conviction is recorded on your criminal history.

This meant that our client was free to pursue his career as an engineer – ordinarily, had a conviction been recorded, he may have faced difficulties in applying for jobs.

This is yet another wonderful result obtained thanks to the skills of our highly-respected drug lawyers.

Our lawyers were able to convince police to downgrade this to a ‘drug possession’ charge, to which our client pleaded guilty.

Our highly-experienced advocates then stressed the negative impact that a conviction would have upon our client’s employment prospects, and accordingly the Magistrate was persuaded to issue a ‘section 10.’

This meant that our client did not receive a conviction on his criminal record and was free to pursue his chosen career.

Our client benefited from the experience of our specialist drug defence team, and was able to obtain the best possible result in his case.

It was argued that if his licence were disqualified, our client would be unable to attend medical appointments, and further, catching public transport would be difficult due to the severity of the pain suffered.

Our lawyers also argued that our client used cannabis as a form of pain relief, rather than for recreational purposes.

Despite the strength of the case against our client, as well as his lengthy driving record, our drug law specialists were able to persuade the magistrate to impose a ‘section 10.’

This means that while our client was found guilty of the offence, the charges will be not recorded on his criminal record.

It also means that he avoids having his licence disqualified.

This fantastic outcome means that our client is able to continue working and travelling without the charges severely impacting his life.

Our drug lawyers regularly represent clients in DUI cases and have a proven track record of obtaining excellent results such as ‘section 10s.’

Despite a strong prosecution case and the seriousness of the charges, our experienced drug lawyers were able to persuade the magistrate to grant our client bail.

This means that our client is able to remain at liberty in the community until his matter is heard in court.

We were able to achieve this desirable outcome thanks to the efforts of our dedicated drug law experts, who spent a considerable amount of time preparing written submissions to the court which emphasised factors such as delays with the prosecution serving evidence, the length of time that our client would spend in prison before his trial, and his need to be free to assist in preparing his case.

This fantastic result means that our lawyers can now work with our clients to secure the best possible outcome in his case.

There have been significant amendments to the Bail Act in recent times, and it certainly pays to have a lawyer on your side who is familiar with these changes.

Our senior lawyers regularly prepare bail applications in the Local, District and Supreme courts and have an expert understanding of bail laws.

Our expert knowledge and experience is reflected in our ability to obtain bail for our clients in even the most serious drug cases, such as this one.

In Campbelltown Local Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully obtained bail for a 23 year old ‘repeat offender’ who was advised by his former solicitors and barrister that he had no chance of getting bail.

The man has several previous convictions for robbery, larceny, drugs and break & enter offences.

Most significantly, he was already on strict conditional bail including a night-time curfew for ‘aggravated break, enter & steal’ at the time of his present charges.

His present charges involve him allegedly ‘break & entering’ a home, stealing credit cards and using those cards shortly thereafter to make purchases at 2 nearby petrol stations and a convenience store, at a time when he was supposed to be home for his curfew.

According to the police ‘facts’, his use of the stolen cards is captured on CCTV footage and he had was in possession of receipts from the purchases when arrested.

The case involved the supply of approximately 60 ounces of heroin and cocaine over several months.

Our Ugur Nedim persuasively presented the case before the Downing Centre District Court Judge who ultimately found exceptional circumstances in our client’s favour and refrained from sending him to prison.

All involved had expected a lengthy prison sentence.

It is an incredible result considering that our client has several previous criminal convictions, and the official sentencing statistics for similar offenders say that 100% were sent to prison.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers® convinced the DPP to withdraw two charges of ‘drug supply’ against our 20 year old Menai client, then obtained a ‘section 10 dismissal’ in Downing Centre Local Court for the remaining charge of ‘drug possession’.

This means that our client has no criminal convictions and is free to pursue her chosen career as a social worker without having to disclose a drug conviction.

The Magistrate in Ryde Local Court dismissed charges of larceny against our 37 year old client who was caught stealing a trolley-load of goods from Myer. The case was persuasively argued by Mr Nedim and the Magistrate stated ‘this is only the second section 32 that I have granted out of about 20 since I came to Ryde in April’.

Downing Centre Local Court dismissed charges of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Common Assault against our 24 year old client despite it being his second assault case within 2 years. He received a criminal conviction for his previous case after his lawyers failed to inform him that his mental condition could be used to have his case dismissed.

Parramatta Local Court dismissed drug possession charges against our 33 year old client who was caught with 9 ecstacy tablets in his pocket. He was initially charged with ‘supply’ but Sydney Criminal Lawyers® had that charge withdrawn. The court found that there was a link between our client’s underlying depression and his use of drugs, and that the proposed treatment plan was adequate.

Wagga Wagga Local Court dismissed a charge of ‘use carriage service to make hoax threat’ against our 45 year old client who contacted the NSW Fire Service advising that a bomb had been placed at a fire station. The court found a significant link between our client’s post traumatic stress and his actions.

Our Senior Criminal Lawyers persuasively argued each of the cases in court.

He was also charged with several other offences involving selling fake goods and possessing prescribed restricted substances.

He was told by 2 other Sydney criminal law firms that:

the case would have to go up to the District Court because the two main charges are ‘strictly indictable’ and at least one would not be withdrawn,

he could not participate in the drug MERIT program due to the charges, and

he would likely receive between 15 months and 2 years full time prison, due to the seriousness of the charges and a previous conviction that he had.

He then came to Sydney Criminal Lawyers® who fought and succeeded in:

having both of the ‘strictly indictable’ charges downgraded (to straight ‘cultivation’ and ‘possession’ only)- so that the case stayed in Downing Centre Local Court rather than going to the District Court which would have exposed him to higher penalties,

convincing the Magistrate to let him undertake the MERIT program, which he completed, and then

The Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court was persuaded to discharge our 24 year old client without recording a criminal conviction against him despite being found in possession of 8 tablets of MDMA (‘ecstacy’).

Police approached our client in a Sydney Night Club after receiving information that he was selling ‘ecstacy’ tablets to patrons.

They asked whether he was in possession of drugs and he immediately produced a small resealable plastic bag containing 8 pills.

He was arrested and charged with ‘drug supply’ and ‘drug possession’.

The ‘drug supply’ charge was based on the law about ‘deemed supply’ – which says that a person can be charged with drug supply simply because they possess more than the ‘trafficable quantity’ of drugs eg more than 0.75 grams of ecstacy.

Our defence team wrote a detailed letter to Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) which resulted in the ‘supply’ charge being withdrawn.

Our client then pleaded guilty to ‘possession’ and our Mr Nedim convinced the Magistrate to allow him to remain ‘conviction-free’ on the basis that a criminal conviction could have impacted upon his ability to become an accountant after completing his university studies.

All drug charges have been dropped after our defence lawyers successfully argued that the prosecution evidence against our client was not strong enough to go to a jury trial.

Our client is a 42 year old man from Waterloo who was suspected of being part of a criminal syndicate that supplied drugs including heroin and ‘ecstacy’ from at least early 2013.

Police set up a surveillance operation in May 2013 that intercepted phone calls between our client and others allegedly involved in that syndicate.

Those intercepts allegedly established that our client was a ‘drug runner’ who sold drugs on behalf of those higher in the syndicate.

Video surveillance also allegedly captured him selling drugs on at least two occasions.

Our client and two other syndicate members were later arrested and charged with various drug offences – our client was charged with supplying heroin on 10th and 31st July 2013.

After several months of intense fighting, our Senior Criminal Defence Team was able to convince the prosecution that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges against our client beyond reasonable doubt.

All charges against him were then withdrawn.

The two ‘co-accused’ are represented by other criminal law firms who have not been able to have their clients’ cases dropped.

Those clients are now facing an expensive, lengthy and risky District Court trial unless they plead guilty to their charges.

Two young men and one young woman who pleaded ‘guilty’ in Deniliquin Local Court to numerous charges of ‘drug possession’ have had their convictions overturned on appeal to Downing Centre District Court.

The charges arose after police applied for a Drug Dog Detection Warrant for the detection of drugs in cars travelling through NSW towards the Con/Fest Music Festival in the A.C.T.

Police pulled over our client’s car which contained two passengers, and the drug detection dog indicated the presence of drugs.

The driver agreed to a search and police located 5.5 grams of liquid LSD, one sugar cube of LSD, 4 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets and 2 grams of cannabis.

All three occupants participated in police interviews and admitted that they possessed the drugs for personal use.

Two of them were charged with 2 counts of ‘drug possession‘ for the ecstacy and LSD. The third was additionally charged with cannabis possession.

All were later convicted of all charges in Deniliquin Local Court and given criminal convictions and fines.

Our firm did not represent them in the Local Court.

One of them later contacted our firm and we immediately lodged an appeal against the severity of his sentences.

The remaining two contacted our firm shortly thereafter and we also lodged appeals for them.

For strategic reasons, we arranged for all of the cases to be transferred to Downing Centre District Court.

Despite the number of different drugs and multiple charges, our Senior Criminal Lawyer Mitchell Cavanagh persuaded the Judge to overturn all of the convictions by ordering ‘section 10 good behaviour bonds’.

This means that all of our clients remain conviction-free. The fines were also overturned.

During the Appeal, Mr Cavanagh directed His Honour to a binding decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal which states that a court may deal with a person without conviction despite the presence of substantial quantities of drugs and numerous charges.

That decision also says that:

1. A ‘section 10’ (non-conviction) can even be awarded in cases of drug supply, including cases where there are 20 or more ecstacy tablets,

2. A good behaviour bond without conviction is a significant penalty in itself, and

3. Whether or not a conviction is recorded makes little difference to whether the penalty is adequate or inadequate.

Once again, our firm’s superior legal knowledge, thorough preparation and persuasive presentation has made a significant difference to result achieved.

Our 21 year old client was charged with drug supply after police observed him smoking crystal methylamphetamine (‘ice’) through a glass pipe in the driver seat of his car.

Police searched the car and located more ‘ice’ in a small resealable bag, 6 tablets of MDMA (‘ecstacy’), drug paraphernalia and a quantity of cash.

They charged him with drug supply due to the quantity of drugs found – this charge is also known as ‘deemed drug supply’.

Once again, our defence team wrote a detailed letter to police requesting withdrawal of the drug supply charges on the basis that our client pleads guilty to the less-serious charge of ‘drug possession’.

The request was successful and our client then pleaded guilty to drug possession.

Our client was represented in court by our senior lawyers who persuaded the Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court to award our client a ‘section 10’ which means that he avoids a criminal conviction altogether.

Our 26 year old client was charged with supplying 2.4 grams of cocaine, and a ‘backup’ charge of drug possession, after police located drugs and drug paraphernalia including electronic scales and resealable bags in a kitchen cupboard at his one-bedroom unit in Paddington.

Our client was the sole lessee of the unit, although his girlfriend also lived there and friends also attended for social gatherings.

The prosecution case failed because they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that our client ‘exclusively possessed’ the drugs, to the exclusion of all others.

In drug cases, police must prove ‘exclusive possession’- in other words, police must exclude any reasonable possibility that the drugs belonged to someone else.

In this case, our lawyers ensured that ample evidence came before the court that the drugs could have belonged to our client’s partner or any one of a number of people who recently attended the unit.

The Magistrate in Downing Centre Local Court therefore found our client ‘not guilty’ and dismissed both of the charges.

Our client is a 26 year old Columbian national who, before his arrest, was in Australia on a student visa.

He is charged with importing 63 kilograms of methamphetamine from Mexico and Columbia into Australia, in contravention of section 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The shipment was detected through telephone intercepts and physical surveillance, and the drugs were intercepted by the AFP in Sydney and replaced with an innocuous substance that was found in the boot of a car in Burwood.

It is alleged that our client was involved in the importation and that the case against him is strong.

The Bail Act 2013 requires the court to consider a range of factors when deciding to release a person from custody.

Those factors include: the seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prosecution case, the person’s links to the community, the risk of not turning up to court, the risk of reoffending, the time they would spend in prison if not granted bail and the need to be free to prepare for their case.

Our client was in a difficult position due to the seriousness and alleged strength of the case, his minimal links to the community and the consequent risk of failing to attend court.

However, our defence team prepared detailed written submissions to the court focusing upon (1) prosecution delays in serving evidence, (2) the fact that he would be spending a significant amount of time behind bars awaiting trial, and (3) our need to have him free to assist in the preparation of his defence.

The prosecution strongly opposed bail, and prepared it’s own written submissions.

However, the Magistrate in Central Local Court ultimately acceded to our request and granted conditional bail to our client.

The next step will be for our experienced team to use our vast specialised experience in commercial drug cases to secure him the optimal outcome.

In Burwood Local Court, each of our Senior Lawyers represented 3 clients who were caught possessing drugs at the Stereosonic Music Festival.

Our clients were from various social, economic and cultural backgrounds and worked in a range of fields – from retail, to accountant, to company executive, to business owner.

Three of our clients were also students.

Most were caught for possessing MDMA tablets, also known as ‘ecstacy’ – ranging from 2 to 9 pills. One of our clients had two ‘drug possession’ charges against him for possessing 7 ecstacy tablets and just over 1 gram of cocaine.

All of our clients’ cases were thoroughly prepared and persuasively presented in court.

This resulted in the Magistrate allowing all of them to avoid criminal records by granting them ‘Section 10s’.

Section 10 means that, even though a person is guilty, a criminal conviction is not recorded against their name.

Our clients are free to get on with their lives without the burden of a criminal record.

In May 2013, our client pleaded guilty to Supplying a Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug and 3 counts of Possess Prohibited Drug.

He was given a two-year ‘Suspended Sentence’ and 3 x three-year ‘Section 9 Good Behaviour Bonds’ for those charges by the Presiding Judge in Downing Centre District Court. This was an excellent result given the seriousness of the charges.

However, in November 2014, he was found in possession of MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets and a quantity of cannabis, and charged with two counts of drug possession. Those charges caused him to breach his ‘Suspended Sentence’ and his ‘Good Behaviour Bonds’.

In the lead-up to his court proceedings, our legal team gathered material supporting the assertion that our client had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation, but had found it difficult at times and relapsed.

In the result, the Presiding Judge was persuaded that there were good reasons to excuse the breach of Suspended Sentence. The breach was therefore excused and our client was given a fresh two-year section 9 good behaviour bond.

He therefore avoids prison and can continue in his efforts towards rehabilitation.

Our 23 year old client has been granted conditional bail in Central Local Court after being charged with ‘supplying a large commercial quantity of prohibited drug’ and ‘knowingly participate in criminal group’.

Police conducted a controlled operation into the alleged production and supply of methylamphetamine originating out of a clandestine laboratory in Ryde, NSW.

Police used surveillance devices and physical monitoring to track the movement of substances from that location to other parts of Sydney.

Our client was arrested together with four other young men who were allegedly in possession of 2.4 kilograms of methylamphetamine.

It is additionally alleged that our client is captured on surveillance footage handling the packages within which the drugs were found.

All five defendants then came before the Presiding Magistrate in Central Local Court.

They all faced an uphill battle when it came to bail because ‘large commercial drug supply’ is one of the offences captured by the new “show cause” provisions of the Bail Act – which means that it is very difficult to obtain bail in such cases.

However, our senior lawyers made extensive verbal submissions which ultimately convinced the Magistrate to grant bail to our client.

All of the other four other defendants were refused bail.

It is just another example of how superior legal representation can make all the difference when it comes to your liberty.

Our client is a 58-year-old lady who owns a tobacconist store in the CBD.

Police had previously seized synthetic drugs from her store, and had received further reports that synthetic cannabis was still being sold.

They obtained a warrant to search the premises and were able to locate various forms of synthetic cannabis, with an estimated value of $10,000.

Our client was then charged with ‘deemed supply’, which means that she was alleged to have more than the ‘traffickable’ quantity of drugs in her possession for the purpose of supply. A ‘deemed supply’ charge can be brought even if there is no evidence that the person actually supplied any drugs.

The laws relating to the sale of synthetic cannabis were changing at the time, and the act of supplying synthetic cannabis had only become an offence 10 days before our client was charged.

Our lawyers were able to persuade the prosecution to drop the charges on that basis, meaning that our client is spared the expense, stress and anxiety of having to fight the case in court.

Our three clients are all Indonesian nationals who were crew members aboard a ship headed for Australia.

The ship’s cargo-hold was altered to increase its capacity, containing a speed boat and dozens of ‘Prada’ bags filled with a total of over 600 kilograms of heroin.

The ship anchored approximately two kilometres from Australian shores, and the speedboat was ferried back and forth unloading the heroin-filled bags onto the mainland.

Unknown to the ship’s captain and crew, Australian authorities had been monitoring the operation and ultimately arrested all on board the ship.

The captain and officers were all convicted at trial. They were represented by other lawyers.

Six crew members faced a separate trial, with our team representing three of the men in Downing Centre District Court.

We advised our clients not to give evidence after the close of the prosecution case at trial, as the state of the evidence was that knowledge or recklessness had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were ultimately found ‘not guilty’ of all charges.

The remaining three crew members – represented by other lawyers – each testified in court. They were questioned at length and ultimately found guilty. In our view, it was a significant strategic error to have exposed the men to cross-examination, given the weaknesses in the evidence at the close of the prosecution case.

Police observed him walking along a footpath with another person outside a popular annual music festival. As our client was adjusting his pants, a single brown pill fell out of his pocket onto the ground. Police saw this, approached and showed him identification. Our client then handed the pill to police, admitting it was ‘ecstacy’.

Police asked whether he had any other pills, and our client produced a bag containing another five ecstasy pills. Police then searched him and found another bag containing 6 more ecstasy pills. He made admissions to police that he was going to give some of the pills to his girlfriend and friends, which amounts to ‘drug supply’ under the law.

In total, our client was found with 12 ecstasy pills. As this is well above the ‘trafficable quantity’ of 0.75 grams – and the fact our client admitted intending to supply pills to others – our client was charged with ‘deemed supply’, which means he was taken to have the drugs upon him for the purpose of supply.

Our client pleaded guilty in the Local Court and, because the quantity was also above the ‘strictly indictable’ weight of 1.25 grams, the case proceeded to the District Court.

Our client told us he saw several criminal lawyers who each advised him that it was not possible to avoid a criminal conviction for a ‘deemed supply’ for so many ecstacy pills. In our view, that advice was contrary to several authorities in the NSWCCA and District Court which make it clear that higher courts can, and indeed have, exercised discretion under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 not to record a criminal conviction for the supply of several ecstacy tablets (see especially R v Mauger).

We assisted our client to prepare a range of favourable materials, including character references, a letter of apology and evidence that he may lose his job upon receiving a criminal record.

In the District Court, the prosecutor presented several cases which state that a prison sentence is appropriate in circumstances similar to that of our client.

In addition to the subjective materials, we presented cases to the contrary and argued at length that it was appropriate for the court to deal with our client by way of a section 10 good behaviour bond.

In the result, the Judge was persuaded to exercise her discretion and place our client on an 18-month bond without recording a criminal conviction against him.

He looks forward to continuing his career and establishing his own business in the future.

Police in plain clothes observed him stand up and exit a bar as they were entering the premises with a drug-detection dog.

Police decided to approach him, at which time our client immediately produced a small bag of cocaine and handed it over to them.

Police then arrested and issued him with a court attendance notice.

It wasn’t the first time our client was in trouble for drug possession.

He had two prior drug possession offences, and was placed each time on a ‘section 10’ good behaviour bond, without a criminal conviction.

He had been warned by the magistrate on the previous occasion that such leniency would not be extended to him on a third occasion.

Despite that warning, our lawyers ensured he was placed in the best possible position in court. We assisted him to prepare character references, a letter of apology and evidence he would likely lose the job he recently acquired if convicted.

Our client also made enquiries about participating in a drug rehabilitation program, and we produced evidence of his efforts to the court.

We then made extensive submissions before the court, and with some hesitation the magistrate was ultimately persuaded to deal with our client by placing him on a good behaviour bond without conviction once again.

A few months into her stay in Australia, she decided to attend a music festival with a group of friends.

On the day of the festival, she was pressured to carry 14 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) tablets into the festival grounds.

The male members of the group, including her boyfriend at the time, felt that as a female she would come under the least suspicion from security and police, who were checking for illegal drugs at the festival entry.

A sniffer dog gave a positive indication and our client quickly admitted to possessing the tablets.

She was then arrested and charged with ‘drug supply’ due to the number of tablets found. In that regard, the law provides that a person found with more than the ‘trafficable quantity’ of drugs can be charged with supply. This is known as ‘deemed supply’. The trafficable quantity of MDMA is just 0.75 grams.

If a person is charged with deemed supply, the onus of proof then shifts to them to prove ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that they were in possession of the drugs for the purpose of something other than supply.

The law also provides that a person who holds drugs momentarily for the owner with a view to returning it is not guilty of supply.

An issue for our client was that there were a number of people to whom the drugs were to be distributed upon entry to the festival, and she made admissions to police that she intended to supply the tablets to these people.

Despite the issues, our defence team wrote a detailed letter – known as ‘representations’ formally requesting withdrawal of the supply charge provided that our client pleaded guilty to drug possession.

She pleaded guilty to that lesser charge and we assisted her in gathering a range of subjective materials, including documents in relation to the impact of a criminal conviction.

After extensive verbal submissions in the local court, and despite submissions against a ‘non conviction’ by the prosecution, Her Honour was persuaded to impose a two-year good behaviour bond without a criminal conviction.

Police were conducting patrols outside a popular music festival with the assistance of their drug detection dogs, when a dog indicated the presence of drugs in our client’s possession.

When asked by police as to whether he had any drugs on him, our client immediately made full admissions and produced a small resealable bag containing 7 MDMA (‘ecstacy’) pills.

Under the law, any amount of ‘ecstasy’ above 0.75g is considered to be in a person’s possession for the purpose of supply. Our client was not charged with supply on this occasion, but with drug possession only.

Our client instructed us that he intended to plead guilty to that charge, which was the appropriate plea given his immediate admissions and the finding of drugs.

We assisting him in preparing his letter of apology to the court, in seeing a counsellor and obtaining a letter of attendance from her, and in gathering character references with the relevant content.

We made extensive submissions in court in relation to his acceptance of responsibility, steps towards addressing underlying issues, remorse and the likely impact of a criminal conviction on his future plans.

With some hesitation, Her Honour was ultimately persuaded not to record a conviction against our client’s name, but rather to place him on an 18-month good behaviour bond without a criminal record.

Our client was overjoyed by the outcome and looks forward to continuing to advance in his career.

Police say they observed him entering a ‘known drug premises’ and exiting a short time later with a package.

They followed his car and pulled him over a short time later. They asked whether he had any drugs in the car, to which he replied ‘some steroids’.

They then search his car, located the package on the passenger seat, and within it found a total of 800 Dianabol (steroid) tablets, a 10 ml vial of Sustanox X250 (a steroid) and approximately 1 gram of cannabis.

Our client was then charged with three counts of drug possession in respect of the substances. Given the state of the evidence and our client’s admissions, and after some alterations were agreed by the prosecution to the ‘full facts’, pleas of guilty were entered to the charges.

Our client instructed that he was “obsessed” with his body image. Accordingly, we arranged for him to see a psychologist, who diagnosed him with ‘body dysmorphia’.

He continued seeing the psychologist in the lead-up to the sentencing hearing, and we obtained a report about his underlying issues and the steps he taken towards address them.

We also assisting him to prepare a letter to the court which outlined his acceptance of responsibility, his remorse and his efforts towards rehabilitation. We also helped him in obtaining character references in the proper form.

Despite the quantity of drugs and number of charges, we ultimately persuaded the magistrate to place him on good behaviour bonds for a period of two-years without recording a criminal conviction against his name.

Our previously-anxious client is now confident that his studies will lead to employment as a teacher or instructor.

Less Teens Smoke Weed When it’s Legal

Countries which move towards legalising the recreational use of cannabis invariably face the conservative outcry that such a move will result in an upsurge in demand.

However, there is a growing body of research to suggest that not only is the link between cannabis legalisation and increased use a myth, but legalising the drug may result in less young people being attracted to its mystique or using it to rebel.

Recent study

A recent study of 216,000 adolescents in the US over a 12 year period suggests that less teenagers are using cannabis in states where its possession and use have been legalised, than when these activities were a crime.

Researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis also found that the number of adolescents with “cannabis-related problems” — such as dependency coupled with trouble in school and relationships — declined by up to 24 percent in jurisdictions that legalised the drug.

The study found that up to 10 percent fewer teenagers in those states had reported using marijuana.

The researchers further found reductions in behavioural problems, including fighting, property crimes and selling drugs.

Causation

This study looked at adolescent behaviour between 2002 and 2013, with this period being shortly after medical cannabis was first legalised in 1996, with greater liberalisation following in the years thereafter.

“We were surprised to see substantial declines in marijuana use and abuse,” said lead researcher Richard A. Grucza. He qualified this by pointing out that the research suggested a correlation and not necessarily a causation relationship.

“We don’t know how legalisation is affecting young marijuana users, but it could be that many kids with behavioural problems are more likely to get treatment earlier in childhood, making them less likely to turn to pot during adolescence,” he added. “Whatever is happening with these behavioural issues, it seems to be outweighing any effects of marijuana decriminalisation.”

Benefits of decriminalisation

Twenty percent of Americans now live in states where the use and possession of small quantities of cannabis are no longer a crime.

State surveys of young people in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska suggest that after decriminalisation, the number of students who had tried the drug remained stable, rather than increased as predicted by conservatives.

Meanwhile, these states have benefited from tens of millions in extra tax revenue. Colorado, for example, brought in $129 million in its second year of legalisation and Washington welcomed $220 million extra into its coffers.

But perhaps the greatest financial benefit is the fall in expenditure upon enforcement – from policing, to prosecution through the court system, to prison expenditure. And there are flow on social benefits, with less drug users being drawn into the crime cycle and all the harm that flows from it.

Portuguese experience

Portugal stands as the worldwide model for drug decriminalisation. In 2001 the Portuguese government took the unprecedented step of decriminalising all illicit substances, from marijuana to crystal methamphetamine to heroin.

In 1999, around one percent of the population in Portugal was addicted to heroin. The nation also reportedly had the highest number of drug-related AIDS deaths in the European Union. The government had been waging the usual war on drugs since the 1980s, but it wasn’t working.

But since decriminalisation, Portugal’s drug-induced death rate has fallen top three per million residents, which is five times lower than the European average. By 2014, the number of new drug-related HIV infections had plummeted to 40, compared with 1,016 thirteen years prior.